ROBERT DELANA, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Robert Delana appeals his grand theft conviction, challenging the admission of testimony that he refused to sign a 'rights form' before police arrival as violating his Fifth Amendment rights. The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that the store manager's detention did not constitute police custody under Miranda, and certified a conflict with a Third District decision.
The refusal testimony did not violate the Fifth Amendment because the defendant was detained by store managers, not police, and therefore was not in custody under Miranda v. Arizona. Store manager testimony about a defendant's conduct during such non-custodial detention does not implicate Fifth Amendment protections.
[1] A defendant's refusal to sign a store-issued rights form prior to the arrival of police officers does not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination whe…
[2] Testimony regarding a defendant's refusal to sign a store-issued rights form is admissible when the detention by store personnel does not amount to custodial interrogatio…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a store manager's testimony that the defendant neither admitted nor denied the theft charge did not violate the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights since her detention by the store manager did not constitute police custody under Miranda v. Arizona”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that store manager detention is not custodial detention requiring Miranda warnings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDelana was apprehended by store managers at an Albertson's store in Jacksonville after allegedly attempting to steal $135 worth of oil paints. Before …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination cases and more on FLexlaw
NIMMONS, Judge.
The defendant appeals from his conviction of the offense of grand theft which involved the theft of $135 worth of oil paints from an Albertson’s store in Jacksonville. Before he exited the store, he was apprehended by Mr. Miller and Mr. Gruny, the drug department manager and store manager, respectively, who escorted the defendant to the store’s office. Miller testified that, prior to the arrival of police officers, the defendant refused to sign a “rights form” which Miller requested that he sign.1 Defense counsel objected on relevancy and Fifth Amendment grounds. Defendant contends on appeal that the above testimony regarding the rights form was violative of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. He has not raised the relevancy ground on appeal. In Williams v. State, 347 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), this court held a store manager’s testimony that the defendant neither admitted nor denied the theft charge did not violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights since her detention by the store manager did not constitute police custody under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The case sub judice is controlled by Williams. We recognize that our decision is in direct conflict with Jones v. State, 434 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1983), and certify such conflict pursuant to Fla.App.R. 9.030(a)(2)(A)(vi).
We have examined the other grounds asserted by the defendant and find them to be without merit.
AFFIRMED.
MILLS and SMITH, JJ., concur. . There is no indication as to what the “rights form” consisted of. It was neither marked for identification nor further described by testimony.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966)
- Williams v. State, 347 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Jones v. State, 434 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)